5 ms·

I bet most of the people freaking out about CL's adult services haven't considered that censorship usually leads to an increased demand. They're doing an excell

by jsz0 16y ago

I bet most of the people freaking out about CL's adult services haven't considered that censorship usually leads to an increased demand. They're doing an excellent job advertising to the world that you can easily buy sex online. If they really wanted to help people they'd be advocating a safe highly regulated adult services industry that satisfies the demand while eliminating most of the ugly side effects of prohibition. They completely reject this idea so it seems obvious to me their agenda is more about moral pontificating than helping people or they truly have no understanding of how the real world works.

danilocampos 16y ago
It's much easier to shoot the messenger than solve the problem. It's all posturing.
bluedanieru 16y ago
It's both, they have no understanding how the real world works, and so they think they are doing everyone a favor with their agenda. And they have neither the desire nor the ability to change.
qq66 16y ago
In this case, censorship does not lead to increased demand. In prostitution, demand is fairly constant, and supply is what is usually affected by legalization. Legalization tends to increase supply (women willing to engage in prostitution), which has the effect of increasing the number of prostitutes, making their jobs safer, and lowering prices (there is an risk premium embedded in prostitute pricing in countries where prostitution is illegal).
jordanb 16y ago
The Cook County (Chicago) Sheriff, Tom Dart, has been leading the charge on this. The Tribune had an article a few days ago about him increasing prostitution busts, and putting up ads around O'Hare warning johns to stay away. With all this moral outrage coming out of him about prostitution, I'm expecting that he'll soon be arrested in a prostitution bust. Anti-prostitution groups always drag out trafficking as a reason to be against prostitution, and also child prostitution. But being a prostitute or being a john are both misdemeanor offences, whereas trafficking and sexual child abuse are both very serious felony charges. It seems to me that anti-trafficking and child sexual abuse laws are a lot more effective in dealing with those problems than general anti-prostitution laws are. The argument about trafficking really rings hollow. These busts mostly target the prostitutes. If they really wanted to find trafficking victims, they'd get a lot better luck approaching women not in the context of arresting them, and asking them about their situation. Throwing women against the police car and slapping handcuffs on them seems counterproductive if your goal is to limit trafficking. If anything, it reinforces everything the traffickers tell the women about the police, making them less likely to cooperate. If a women is not a victim of sex slavery or underage, it seems absurd that she could be charged with a crime for selling something she can legally give away for free.
- derefr 16y ago
  From the perspective of the police force, prostitution being illegal is 1% moral uptightness, and 99% pragmatism. Having prostitution be a misdemeanor helps catch people in the act of other, more serious crimes, as the "crime" of prostitution justifies search warrants to otherwise-unassailable places. It's a workaround for a permissions issue, basically, and has no ethical justification.
  - jsz0 16y ago
    Don't those other serious crimes generally stem from prohibition too? If you're running girls you might as well sell drugs too. Illegal gambling? Now you need guns to protect yourself because you can't call the police and report that your prostitute just stole $20k worth of cocaine from you. It's such a vicious cycle.
    - derefr 16y ago
      From what a policeman friend of mine told me, the busts they spend all their time on have the reverse of that story: a local gang/mob forms, and then, since they're already assaulting and murdering to keep their place in the criminal underbelly of the city, and since they know their shit well enough to be getting away with it, they can run as many side-businesses as they like doing other, lesser illegal deeds, because they've already ensured their protection. This is pride before a fall, because these lesser crimes—especially if they involve non-group others, like prostitutes or drug mules—can be the cracks in the dam that allow the police to nab them.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >It's a workaround for a permissions issue, basically, and has no ethical justification. I think you mean no ethical justification that you agree with. For example, take as an axiom "sex should only be allowed between partners in long term monandrous relationships" and it follows logically from there. This is an ethical justification. You just apparently disagree with the premise. Most theistic ethical systems have something akin to this as a rule (whether derived or axiomatic within the system).
thailandstartup 16y ago
I agree 100% - in the unregulated environment, the real evils of sex-traffiking and prostitution of minors exist side-by-side with quasi-legal adult prostitution. Properly regulated brothels don't have traffiked workers or minors, do have STD testing and are safer for the workers and the johns. As with drugs, many of the problems are created by prohibition, and those who insist on prohibition are responsible for the continuance of those problems.
- thailandstartup 16y ago
  Interestingly, the one area where prohibition works very well is prohibition on firearms, but this is not a popular prohibition in the US.
  - Zak 16y ago
    Mexico has fairly broad prohibitions on private ownership of firearms. Mexico has a fairly high rate of firearms being used for antisocial behavior. Switzerland, on the other hand mandates that a significant portion of its population keep assault rifles and ammunition at home. Switzerland has a fairly low rate of firearms being used for antisocial behavior. It seems to me that prohibition of firearms has fairly little direct effect on firearm-related crime. There may be other differences between Mexico and Switzerland worth considering as explanations for the difference in crime rates, and it seems likely that similar factors might better exp.lain crime rates in other countries.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Do you have evidence for this? (Note: I'm looking for something a bit stronger than "Country X has gun prohibition, a different social structure, different demographics and different laws, and has lower homicide rate than Country Y which does not have gun prohibition.")
    - thailandstartup 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_owners... Countries that have prohibitions on firearms have fewer firearms. It's a huge difference in the numbers and that's an example of prohibition working. I don't know that countries that have prohibitions on drugs reduce drug taking by the same amount, or countries with prohibitions on prostitution reduces prostitution by a similar amount. Mexico is an outlier because of its large porous border with the US. Switzerland is just an outlier.
sigzero 16y ago
They can demand all they want. They just can't get it from CL now.

by jsz0 16y ago

danilocampos 16y ago

It's much easier to shoot the messenger than solve the problem. It's all posturing.

bluedanieru 16y ago

It's both, they have no understanding how the real world works, and so they think they are doing everyone a favor with their agenda. And they have neither the desire nor the ability to change.

qq66 16y ago

In this case, censorship does not lead to increased demand. In prostitution, demand is fairly constant, and supply is what is usually affected by legalization. Legalization tends to increase supply (women willing to engage in prostitution), which has the effect of increasing the number of prostitutes, making their jobs safer, and lowering prices (there is an risk premium embedded in prostitute pricing in countries where prostitution is illegal).

jordanb 16y ago

The Cook County (Chicago) Sheriff, Tom Dart, has been leading the charge on this. The Tribune had an article a few days ago about him increasing prostitution busts, and putting up ads around O'Hare warning johns to stay away. With all this moral outrage coming out of him about prostitution, I'm expecting that he'll soon be arrested in a prostitution bust. Anti-prostitution groups always drag out trafficking as a reason to be against prostitution, and also child prostitution. But being a prostitute or being a john are both misdemeanor offences, whereas trafficking and sexual child abuse are both very serious felony charges. It seems to me that anti-trafficking and child sexual abuse laws are a lot more effective in dealing with those problems than general anti-prostitution laws are. The argument about trafficking really rings hollow. These busts mostly target the prostitutes. If they really wanted to find trafficking victims, they'd get a lot better luck approaching women not in the context of arresting them, and asking them about their situation. Throwing women against the police car and slapping handcuffs on them seems counterproductive if your goal is to limit trafficking. If anything, it reinforces everything the traffickers tell the women about the police, making them less likely to cooperate. If a women is not a victim of sex slavery or underage, it seems absurd that she could be charged with a crime for selling something she can legally give away for free.

derefr 16y ago
From the perspective of the police force, prostitution being illegal is 1% moral uptightness, and 99% pragmatism. Having prostitution be a misdemeanor helps catch people in the act of other, more serious crimes, as the "crime" of prostitution justifies search warrants to otherwise-unassailable places. It's a workaround for a permissions issue, basically, and has no ethical justification.
- jsz0 16y ago
  Don't those other serious crimes generally stem from prohibition too? If you're running girls you might as well sell drugs too. Illegal gambling? Now you need guns to protect yourself because you can't call the police and report that your prostitute just stole $20k worth of cocaine from you. It's such a vicious cycle.
  - derefr 16y ago
    From what a policeman friend of mine told me, the busts they spend all their time on have the reverse of that story: a local gang/mob forms, and then, since they're already assaulting and murdering to keep their place in the criminal underbelly of the city, and since they know their shit well enough to be getting away with it, they can run as many side-businesses as they like doing other, lesser illegal deeds, because they've already ensured their protection. This is pride before a fall, because these lesser crimes—especially if they involve non-group others, like prostitutes or drug mules—can be the cracks in the dam that allow the police to nab them.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >It's a workaround for a permissions issue, basically, and has no ethical justification. I think you mean no ethical justification that you agree with. For example, take as an axiom "sex should only be allowed between partners in long term monandrous relationships" and it follows logically from there. This is an ethical justification. You just apparently disagree with the premise. Most theistic ethical systems have something akin to this as a rule (whether derived or axiomatic within the system).

thailandstartup 16y ago

I agree 100% - in the unregulated environment, the real evils of sex-traffiking and prostitution of minors exist side-by-side with quasi-legal adult prostitution. Properly regulated brothels don't have traffiked workers or minors, do have STD testing and are safer for the workers and the johns. As with drugs, many of the problems are created by prohibition, and those who insist on prohibition are responsible for the continuance of those problems.

thailandstartup 16y ago
Interestingly, the one area where prohibition works very well is prohibition on firearms, but this is not a popular prohibition in the US.
- Zak 16y ago
  Mexico has fairly broad prohibitions on private ownership of firearms. Mexico has a fairly high rate of firearms being used for antisocial behavior. Switzerland, on the other hand mandates that a significant portion of its population keep assault rifles and ammunition at home. Switzerland has a fairly low rate of firearms being used for antisocial behavior. It seems to me that prohibition of firearms has fairly little direct effect on firearm-related crime. There may be other differences between Mexico and Switzerland worth considering as explanations for the difference in crime rates, and it seems likely that similar factors might better exp.lain crime rates in other countries.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Do you have evidence for this? (Note: I'm looking for something a bit stronger than "Country X has gun prohibition, a different social structure, different demographics and different laws, and has lower homicide rate than Country Y which does not have gun prohibition.")
  - thailandstartup 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_owners... Countries that have prohibitions on firearms have fewer firearms. It's a huge difference in the numbers and that's an example of prohibition working. I don't know that countries that have prohibitions on drugs reduce drug taking by the same amount, or countries with prohibitions on prostitution reduces prostitution by a similar amount. Mexico is an outlier because of its large porous border with the US. Switzerland is just an outlier.

sigzero 16y ago

They can demand all they want. They just can't get it from CL now.